What Russia's deadliest nuclear sub could do to the US

Lets suppose that all that is true (which it may be)
Lets suppose that the usa was extraordinarily obnoxious and provocative
Lets say the worst things possible about the usa

What will never happen... even in the worst case scenario.... what will never happen is the usa to invade russia. So in the very very very worst case scenario
Russia has the option of fighting a nuclear war that will cataclysmicly destroy both countries
Or
To let that worst case scenario persist and let their citizens go on living their lives (albeit humiliated by what ever is the worst case scenario)

So... which is better? Which is better? To have a country humiliated, or to have a country reduced to rubble? Hummmm, lets think about the very difficult question

You see, the absolute fact is that it does not matter if either or both countries have advanced terrible weapons. What ever weapons we already have are much more than sufficient to absolutelt destroy eachother. I guess both russia and the usa can become even mor adept at destroying eachother. But i fail to see the advantage for either country to advance their destructive capability exponentially beyond what the can currently do. Is it that much better to be able to destroy us 100 times over vs 10x over. Really, whats the point? Will we be more scared and intimidated to learn fro you about your subs and your hypersonic weapons, never mind the ample biological and chemical weapons both countries undoubtedly are also stockpiling. How many time killing each person is enough? Will you be more scared if i aim a cannon at you vs a machine gun? Where is your logic? Is this some perplexing russian logic wher it is better to kill people 1000 times over rather than killing them just once?

 

The Vietnamese recycled everything we tossed away. They won the war and threw us out. I don't care how much bull crappy you believe about "aid" because they had very little. We (on the other hand) had everything in an unlimited supply .... and THAT (in case you haven't ever been clued in) is the only reason we were there - to use up as much equipment as possible to make U.S. politicians and big business gazillionaires even richer and the only thing 'the folks back home' got was a free blue star to put in the window so that the neighbours would think they were "good patriots".

 

The US wasn’t equipped with Soviet weaponry so how exactly were we throwing Soviet weapons away for the Vietnamese to recycle? The Soviets massively equipped the Vietnamese.

 

Oh please. Which American businesses got rich due to the Vietnam War.?

And have you forgotten that the final act in the Vietnam War was North Vietnamese Army tanks crashing through the gates of the South Vietnamese presidential palace?

Those tanks were built in China.

 

All of the weapon-making companies and others such as GM ..... or maybe you think the tanks ran on treadmill power run by mice?

Ain't that funny. You think it was OK for Americans to be in Vietnam but not for Vietnamese to be there?

And the American ones were built in the U.S. .... driven by Americans. Duh! And whose heavy bomber B-52's were those built by? Any guesses? Cambodia maybe? Do you know nothing at all about the war in Vietnam? If you have any questions just let me know and I will be happy to enlighten you.

 

So you are saying that the Vietnamese were equipped with an equal amount of firepower as the Americans were? And whose country was that anyway? Did it belong to the Americans or the Vietnamese? The Vietnamese fought with sticks when they had no weapon. Still they won.

 

First, To my fellow Americans who think Putin and Trump are pals. Do you read the above clearly? Do pals plan on wars?

To the Russians. I frankly do not see Putin as mad as the above scenario supposes. Why would he risk our overwhelming number of submarines lurking in the oceans able to do far more damage?

 

Vietnam was a multi phase form of war.
The final two phases were Americans in combat against the Vietnamese. True we did not invade the North and that is the correct military way to win wars, but we won in the South and bombed the hell out of them in the North. They had to rely on the Russian and Chinese weapons pipeline to survive.

Think the American civil war. The North with far more antiquated weapons (than currently available) waged a hell of a war on the South. But to win they had to destroy the South.

We had to win that way in Vietnam.

But we did not lose. We negotiated our way out of the Vietnamese war and abandoned them and it was South Vietnam that lost the war.

Some of you should have seen how Germany was destroyed by Eisenhower. He flattened Germany. We did not do that to Vietnam.

 

Wait, are you saying the people living in South Vietnam wanted to be conquered by the North Vietnamese? Surely you would not make that case.

South Vietnam had no money to fight longer. They depended on the good will of the US Congress and they refused to shove more capital or weapons to help the South.

 

Only a handful of American tanks served in the Vietnam War. There was ONE, that is ONE and only one battle between armored vehicles in the entire war.

The entire B-52 force was built and in service YEARS BEFORE U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War begin.

Why would I ask you something about a subject you know nothing of.?

 

That guy probably thinks those thousands of people fleeing South Vietnam when the communists conquered them were all "traitorous collaborators" who did not want to have to work in the new "worker's paradise" the communists brought.

 

PROPAGANDA ALERT!

 

No, it isn't.

 

Both the U.S. and Russia can make jet aircraft that can pull more Gs in a turn than a human can survive.

 

My d*ck is wayyyyy bigger than yours.

 

Because you couldn't write either one?

 

What we do know is that Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians don't like Russians. Care to guess why?

 

What is this?

 

Because this little vermin secretly runs the world?

 

You know the amount of "G's" an aircraft can pull is NOT the last word in maneuverability.

 

Well technically the Soviets (and Russians) have tended to call their aircraft carriers "aircraft carrying CRUISERS" (emphasis mine) because according to treaties, the Turks do not have to allow any aircraft carriers through the Bosporus Straits if they displace more than 15,000 tons.

See the history of the Kiev class carriers if you doubt this.

Beautiful picture of the Kuznetsov by the way. Ever seen that youtube video of the SU-27 Flanker plunging off the bow of the Kuznetsov and into the ocean after an attempted "touch and go" landing?

It was hilarious. More of a "touch and go...over the side"!

 

No, haven't seen it. I'll have to look for it.

My father was Chief of Advanced Design for Northrop Aircraft when I was a kid and I got hooked on jet fighter aircraft. They're incredible--it's too bad they're all about blowing things up and killing people. Something that beautiful should exist just because. Wouldn't you know ... I married the daughter of the guy who started the Wright-Patterson test pilot school and was the first Commandant. You never met a more cool customer in your life. A Missouri farm boy who just had to become a pilot after serving a barnstormer. His favorite WW2 aircraft ... the P-38.

 

No, I'm saying what firepower the did have was dependent on Soviet supply.

 

In his mind, all those thousands of SA2 SAMs fired from North Vietnam at U.S. aircraft must've been assembled by a bunch of pajama clad workers in wood huts.

 

Really! Did he know former astronaut Thomas Stafford? Because I heard Stafford did a lot of basic design work on the B-2A which of course was built by Northrop.